Bachmann super-PAC switches to … Romney?

posted at 8:55 am on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I guarantee this switch will hurt Michele Bachmann a lot more than Kent Sorenson’s betrayal yesterday. At least Sorenson didn’t make a half-million-dollar ad buy for Ron Paul on his way out the door:

A political action committee which had planned to support Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign has very quietly defected to Mitt Romney — and it’s spending big on his behalf.

Citizens for a Working America, the so-called Super PAC which aired TV ads against a Democratic congressional candidate last year, had indicated earlier this year that it was backing the Minnesota congresswoman in the GOP nominating contest. But the group instead made a $475,000 Iowa ad buy on Christmas Eve in support of Romney, according to Federal Election Commission data published today.

The so-called independent expenditure was listed as supporting Romney’s candidacy, and an Iowa political operative who has seen the ad confirmed to The Daily that it’s a 30-second positive spot about the former Massachusetts governor that doesn’t mention any other candidate.

Just four months ago, the Washington Post heralded this group as a “major Bachmann super-PAC” in the post-Ames coverage, although it’s not clear whether CWA ever spent any money on Bachmann’s behalf. Look at the conservative brain trust in this group that originally backed Bachmann:

A trio of well-known conservatives have organized a so-called “super PAC” to aid Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, according to sources familiar with the move.

Citizens for a Working America, as the group is known, will be chaired by former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Ed Brookover, a longtime political consultant and adviser to Bachmann, will be involved as will conservative lawyer and economist Marc Nuttle.

“Michele Bachmann is a principled conservative with the policy prescriptions our country needs to pull out of its economic doldrums,” said Brookover in an email exchange with The Fix. “We look forward to promoting her and her programs to the American public.”

The group was formed in the fall of 2010 and spent more than $250,000 to defeat former South Carolina Democratic Rep. John Spratt. It will now be turned entirely to aid Bachmann. It joins “Keep Conservatives United”, a super PAC formed last month with the express purpose of helping Bachmann win the GOP nomination.

Ken Blackwell was a darling of the Right a few years ago when he helped push through a ban on same-sex marriages in Ohio in 2004, then ran for Governor of Ohio two years later, losing to Ted Strickland. Blackwell later joined the conservative Family Research Council, where he remains as a senior fellow. However, Blackwell apparently left the group a couple of months ago when he switched his personal endorsement to Rick Perry, just as Perry’s bubble deflated entirely. It looks as though Blackwell’s former campaign manager Norman Cummings may be running the group now. The Hill reported yesterday that Ed Brookover left CWA but still backs Bachmann, and is somewhat bemused by the sudden switch:

The group originally counted longtime Bachmann adviser Ed Brookover and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell as active board members. But Blackwell endorsed Rick Perry in October and Brookover told The Hill that he left the group a while back.

“They weren’t raising any money for the Michele effort,” he said. “I have no idea why [they are spending for Romney]. I’m still supporting Michele.”

In some ways, this switch makes more sense than Sorenson’s to Paul. Bachmann went toe to toe with Paul in the debates on foreign policy, especially in the last two, where the exchange got heated. Paul later accused Bachmann of “hating all Muslims” while on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s a little mystifying how Sorenson can square the circle between those two diametrically opposed positions and claim to have supported both of them in the same cycle. On the other hand, Bachmann never really went after Mitt Romney in debates in the same way she attacked Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry, a dynamic that had been noted more than occasionally over the last few months. A switch by her super-PAC to Romney raises fewer issues of hypocrisy, although it still certainly looks … odd. Why not Rick Santorum instead, who is much closer to Bachmann politically and is arguably catching a polling wave this month?

The loss of this super-PAC will erode both credibility and firepower from Bachmann in the last few days of the campaign in Iowa, and will boost Romney far more than Sorenson will do for Ron Paul. It’s not a gamewinner by itself for Romney, but it looks like game over for Team Bachmann.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

What is it you want me to do? A Perry donor got money for a cancer project. Is that unethical? Illegal? Do you have any evidence that the project didn’t merit the funding? Is anyone who donates a lot of money blackballed from government contracts? Am I supposed to be able to affirmatively prove that there was no crime and nothing unethical? This a cheap smear. You want o waste your vote on Bachman, go ahead. But I’m not going to sit here and kiss your ass over some lame smear trying to convince you that your suspicions based on hit pieces are unfounded. How in the world could I even do that.

Malachi45 on December 29, 2011 at 11:42 AM

The review board rejected the grant, but then during a closed door session with no documented appeals process they get the money (which I’m sure had nothing to do with the founder of Convergen donating $335K to Perry).

Then there’s this:
Just like Solyndra, the principal investors unloaded risks on taxpayers. According to the previously secret state grant application, Convergen founders put up only $1,000 each, while Texas taxpayers put up $4.5 million. They were entering phase II clinical trials in late 2010, but only 33% of successful phase II drugs make it to market, and the success rate for cancer drugs is only 4.7%.

The big difference between Solyndra and Convergen is that Convergen hasn’t failed. Not yet, at least. The odds of success might be better than a roulette wheel, but this is taxpayer money.

Convergen is not an isolated case, either. In fact, Nance previously received state money “at the direction of the Governor’s budget office” for a now-bankrupt company which still owes Texas $50,000. Max Talbott served on Perry’s ETF panel and simultaneously was a paid consultant for several firms that sought and received money from the ETF. While he claims that he recused himself for some conflicts (in closed-door sessions), conflict of interest questions remain for other clients; $16 million of ETF funds went to the firms of major Perry donors, and $27 million of ETF funds went to firms of former ETF advisory board members.

There are also questions about unusual access by lobbyists who went to work for Perry and then returned to lobbying for firms doing business with the state. Still more questions exist about major donors influencing decisions, approvals, and the reorganization of state agencies. Much of this will almost certainly be revealed in the course of the campaign.

Crony capitalism is a major issue and I don’t think Perry can be trusted.

The article I cited lays out the facts, it’s far from a smear piece just because it exposes Perry.

One other thing – Rubio is not and has never been a real Tea Partier. He is a less noticed version of Scott Brown up in Mass – use ‘em and then go your own way.

Plus, the issues raised about his birth status by the media were a real slap in the face for Rubio, their darling up until then, and he needs more help with that than the Tea Party can provide, i.e. people with money and possible power in the future.

You mean No Child Left Behind big government Santorum? New who supports the individual mandate and gun control? Now I know you are full of crap about not supporting Perry because he isn’t a true conservative. You just follow Levin’s marching orders

Malachi45 on December 29, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Santorum’s votes for No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D are the major reasons I’m supporting Bachmann over him.

However, Santorum is much better on illegal immigration than Governor Gardasil.

“I would say that he is soft on illegal immigration,” Santorum began. “[He] gave a speech in 2001 where he talked about bi-national health insurance between Mexico and Texas. I mean, I don’t even think Barack Obama would be for bi-national health insurance.”

Newt would be a bad President. He is a Progressive as he too often seeks big gov’t solutions. As opposed to Mittens though, at least Newt has done some conservative things in cutting gov’t and welfare reform.

Mr BiNational Health insurance won’t be around much longer. All his big money can’t even get him ahead of Santorum and Bachmann in Iowa.

Perry is just trying to buy Iowa while Santorum has been doing the real door to door campaigning to meet voters.

Color me skeptical when the author has to admit that details are “very murky”. Without diligence, such a story is simply a hit piece (doesn’t mean that the story isn’t true – just means that the journalistic standards are as poor or worse than those of the NYT).

besser tot als rot on December 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM

So you see no issue that the review board rejected it, but then suddendly it was accepted behind a closed door session with no record of appeal?

That coincidentally the founder of Convergen gave $335K to Perry’s campaign??

One other thing – Rubio is not and has never been a real Tea Partier. He is a less noticed version of Scott Brown up in Mass – use ‘em and then go your own way.

Plus, the issues raised about his birth status by the media were a real slap in the face for Rubio, their darling up until then, and he needs more help with that than the Tea Party can provide, i.e. people with money and possible power in the future.

Surprise, Surprise – and that is Romney.

Connecto the dotso

Horace on December 29, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I don’t know alot about Rubio, I just find it a bit strange that he’s become such a rockstar and people act like he’ll definitely be a great president and should be on the short list for VP.

I mean he hasn’t been in office that long at all and people are really jumping the gun.

Rubio needs to weigh his options. Does he want to continue to be a “Tea party” guy or does he want to payback for the donations?

It’s always good to give back
Basilsbest on December 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM

If “giving back” means insulting potential Republican voters, I doubt Romney’s campaign team would agree with you. Good luck selling anyone anything by telling them that they are stupid.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on December 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM

People who threaten to stay home or vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee are beyond stupid.

He will do exactly the same thing SC Gov. Nikki Haley did. Endorse Romney. She is now despised by the tea party who was responsible for her getting elected. The politicians use conservatives like a condom. After we have served their purpose, they discard us like a used one.

It’s not a gamewinner by itself for Romney, but it looks like game over for Team Bachmann.

Ed Morrissey on December 29, 2011 at 8:55 am

This is what bothers me about your post Ed. How can you say it’s game over for Team Bachmann when at least half of the voters in Iowa are undecided! Get your mind right. Stop being one of the mindless puppets CWA is trying to influence in Romney’s favor.

apocalypse on December 29, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Well said. How about we let the voters decide instead of some stupid super pac or moron campaign staffer.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Exactly. What is Ed thinking when he says Bachmann is finished in Iowa when at least half of the voters are undecided? That is just an insane statement. Or does Ed have an agenda too? We know he endorsed RomneyCare in 2008.

Nikki flipped and so will Rubio. Scott Brown in Mass in time also.
Tea Party will soon find out how Repub Establishment Ruling Class politics work. Goes all the way back to the Caesars – “Give ‘em bread and circuses and tell ‘em to behave.”

I would think Mitt and Nikki are already planning their joint appearances in front of the South Carolina primary. I would also not be at all surprised to see triple appearances – Mitt, Nikki and Rubio – in front of both the South Carolina and Florida votes throughout both states.

Tea Party better plan on getting Congress and planning for 2016. The elite has decided they need to “leave the room” this electoral season.

That is the biggest bunch of pathetic excuse attempting I have read in a long time.
First off, what about Obama made you think he was competent to be the President and CIC?
Second, believability, what the heck is that? Believe in what? What about Obama was believable? If you really mean blind gullible faith, say so.
Third, no true Independents or Moderates, that I know, voted for Obama. All the people I know who did were either Black, die hard Dems, Liberals, or pretend Indies who really had voted Dem most of the time.
And finally, what is competence to you? If it means being able to promote the more Liberal agenda, say so. Don’t attempt to disguise it with this competence belivable smoke screen.

Deanna on December 29, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008. I never believed in the myth.

A lot of people did, though. They don’t ANYMORE, which is my point. All of this huge drop-off in indie support for Obama isn’t because independents have fallen in love with “true conservatism”, it’s because they no longer believe in the myth of Obama’s competency, which is directly related to….well, the fact that he’s governed horribly.

If he endorses Mittens, he’s dead to the Tea Party.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 12:24 PM

No, he won’t be.

Just like I don’t believe Nikki Haley is “despised” now by the Tea Party.

Not everyone subscribes to your ridiculous purity tests. Not everyone believes, as you seem to do, that “playing the long game” (i.e. “the best way to defeat four more years of the Obama agenda is to support the Republican who has the best chance of getting elected, whether they’re the most conservative choice available or not”) is some sort of ultimate, unforgiveable betrayal of conservatism.

You do know that he has a fine, conservative judiciary advisory board, don’t you? One that is headed up by none other than Robert Bork. No, you needn’t worry about his SCOTUS nominations if he is presented with an opportunity. What’s more, the GOP is poised to gain seats in the Senate so he won’t need some stealth candidate to get an appointment through.

Just like I don’t believe Nikki Haley is “despised” now by the Tea Party.

Not everyone subscribes to your ridiculous purity tests. Not everyone believes, as you seem to do, that “playing the long game” (i.e. “the best way to defeat four more years of the Obama agenda is to support the Republican who has the best chance of getting elected, whether they’re the most conservative choice available or not”) is some sort of ultimate, unforgiveable betrayal of conservatism.

Vyce on December 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Purity tests?? You mean like not bending on key issues like mandates, global warming, illegal immigration..etc?

It’s called having a backbone, something you obviously know nothing about.

Moderate squishes like yourself are the problem.

Only the moderate Mittens can win eh? Just like only McCain could win in 2008.

You do know that he has a fine, conservative judiciary advisory board, don’t you? One that is headed up by none other than Robert Bork. No, you needn’t worry about his SCOTUS nominations if he is presented with an opportunity. What’s more, the GOP is poised to gain seats in the Senate so he won’t need some stealth candidate to get an appointment through.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Based on what in his history? Romney supporters keep telling me how he’s said this or that or how he’s got advisors now that will tell him different things than before when he was governor.

He still has not won my vote because I see no reason to trust him. His actions are in conflict with his current rhetoric. Why should I believe his current rhetoric over his record?

A lot of people did, though. They don’t ANYMORE, which is my point. All of this huge drop-off in indie support for Obama isn’t because independents have fallen in love with “true conservatism”, it’s because they no longer believe in the myth of Obama’s competency, which is directly related to….well, the fact that he’s governed horribly.

Vyce on December 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM

You know what you get when you convince people to vote against your opponent but not for you?

No mandate. And a backlash from the voters if you try to do anything beyond stopping the bad thing your predecessor created.

That’s Mitt Romney. He’s the “I’m not Obama”. That’s the only SINGLE reason to vote for him. Should he win the primary and then should he win the general election, it will be because he’s “Not Obama.”

That’s great. But nothing else will change. We’ll still be on a decent into Greece like bankruptcy but will have less time to deal with it.

Worse, the Republicans will be distrusted to deal with it because Romney will have ignored it for 4 years.

Sooo, a vote for Romney is a vote to screw my children over because the milquetoast moderate will do nothing to fix the problem. He’ll kick the can down the road. He won’t convince the American people of the need to act and he’ll go along to get along, hoping to get re-elected. That’s what I take from his record.

Of course he would be “better” than Obama. My daughter’s doll would be “better” than Obama. We can’t settle for stopping the damage anymore. Medicare and Social Security must be reformed now.

George W. Bush tried to do so, but he failed to convince the American people of the urgency of the need. Based on what evidence do you think Romney would succeed in that task?

One of the main reasons I don’t support Willard “Mittens” Romneycare for the Republican presidential nomination is that I perceive him as a wimp who will say and do anything in front of an audience to get elected…but he lacks the courage and conviction to stand for, well, ANYTHING when push comes to shove and he’s threatened with negative media coverage for taking a necessary but unpopular stance.

Do you honestly believe that Willard will have the guts to eliminate the funding to PBS and NPR?

It needs to happen…especially in regards to NPR. For decades now, taxpayers have been funding these media outlets that exist as Democrat propaganda machines. It’s not appropriate for all taxpayers to pay for television and radio programs that promote the Left’s agenda…and it’s damn foolish for Republicans to allow this to keep happening.

I don’t trust Willard “Mittens” Romneycare to actually follow through on defunding PBS and NPR — both of which would survive and thrive without taxpayer money.

What is it you want me to do? A Perry donor got money for a cancer project. Is that unethical? Illegal? Do you have any evidence that the project didn’t merit the funding? Is anyone who donates a lot of money blackballed from government contracts? Am I supposed to be able to affirmatively prove that there was no crime and nothing unethical? This a cheap smear. You want o waste your vote on Bachman, go ahead. But I’m not going to sit here and kiss your ass over some lame smear trying to convince you that your suspicions based on hit pieces are unfounded. How in the world could I even do that.

Malachi45 on December 29, 2011 at 11:42 AM

The review board rejected the grant, but then during a closed door session with no documented appeals process they get the money (which I’m sure had nothing to do with the founder of Convergen donating $335K to Perry).

Then there’s this:

Just like Solyndra, the principal investors unloaded risks on taxpayers. According to the previously secret state grant application, Convergen founders put up only $1,000 each, while Texas taxpayers put up $4.5 million. They were entering phase II clinical trials in late 2010, but only 33% of successful phase II drugs make it to market, and the success rate for cancer drugs is only 4.7%.

The big difference between Solyndra and Convergen is that Convergen hasn’t failed. Not yet, at least. The odds of success might be better than a roulette wheel, but this is taxpayer money.

Convergen is not an isolated case, either. In fact, Nance previously received state money “at the direction of the Governor’s budget office” for a now-bankrupt company which still owes Texas $50,000. Max Talbott served on Perry’s ETF panel and simultaneously was a paid consultant for several firms that sought and received money from the ETF. While he claims that he recused himself for some conflicts (in closed-door sessions), conflict of interest questions remain for other clients; $16 million of ETF funds went to the firms of major Perry donors, and $27 million of ETF funds went to firms of former ETF advisory board members.

There are also questions about unusual access by lobbyists who went to work for Perry and then returned to lobbying for firms doing business with the state. Still more questions exist about major donors influencing decisions, approvals, and the reorganization of state agencies. Much of this will almost certainly be revealed in the course of the campaign.

Crony capitalism is a major issue and I don’t think Perry can be trusted.

The article I cited lays out the facts, it’s far from a smear piece just because it exposes Perry.

LevinFan on December 29, 2011 at 12:07 PM

And you had the nerve to pretend you had an open mind and could be convinced…tsk tsk. You seem to know the facts, just putting the Levin spin on it. Think for yourself Levin fan boy.

Better start fighting hard for Santorum now that your corrupt girl has been outed as a Romney mole.

And be sure to look into santorum’s Accuweather crony capitalism. I understand that sort of thing is a deal breaker for you Levin fan boys.